United States v. Beckham

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1992 · Evidence

968 F.2d 47 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencehearsayadoptive admissionco-conspirator exceptionRule 801(d)(2)(B)Rule 801(d)(2)(E)lesser-included offensesimple possession

Facts

An undercover officer approached Monica Monroe and Beckham in a backyard and asked to buy crack. After Monroe sold one rock and said the officer could get another from "my buddy," Beckham immediately rose, retrieved a larger bag containing 34 individually packaged rocks of crack from under a bench, and began to open it before the officer arrested both of them. Monroe did not testify at trial, and her statement was introduced through the officer. Beckham testified instead that he innocently picked up a glove containing the drugs and had no intent to distribute them.

Issue

Whether Monroe's statement was admissible against Beckham, whether Beckham was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction on simple possession, and whether the district court erred by believing it lacked authority to depart downward from the career-offender guideline range under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.

Rule

A co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) cannot be admitted based solely on the statement itself; there must be independent evidence supporting the existence of a conspiracy. A statement is admissible as an adoptive admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(B) when the defendant understood and unambiguously assented to it, and assent may be shown by conduct. A lesser-included offense instruction is required only when a rational jury could convict on the lesser offense while acquitting on the greater. Under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, a district court may depart downward even for a career offender when criminal history category VI significantly overrepresents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history and likelihood of recidivism.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, an undercover officer approached Tasha Reed and Nolan Price outside an apartment building. After selling the officer one small bag of cocaine, Tasha said, "If you want more, my guy has it," and Nolan immediately walked to a flowerpot, pulled out a larger bundle of individually wrapped bags, and started opening it.

The prosecution offers Tasha's statement against Nolan. There is no additional evidence of any prior agreement between them beyond their proximity and apparent familiarity. Which is the strongest basis for admissibility?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a co-conspirator statement cannot be admitted based solely on the statement itself; independent evidence of conspiracy is required. But a statement may be admitted as an adoptive admission when the defendant understood and unambiguously assented to it, and assent may be shown by conduct. Nolan's immediate retrieval and opening of a stash packaged for sale strongly indicates endorsement of Tasha's statement.